Civil Writ – Service Law - Pension Entitlement – Daily Wager Service Prior to Regularization – Non-Consideration of Pre-Regularization Service – Dismissal of Writ – Petitioner, a Chowkidar in Gorakhpur Development Authority, sought inclusion of daily wage service from 1988 to 2010 towards pension qualifying service under the Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: As per Rule 2(i), qualifying service requires 20 years of regular service; petitioner’s regular service was only 13 years post-regularization—Service prior to regularization as daily wager excluded from qualifying service computation—Petition dismissed [Paras 14-18].

Application of Prem Singh Principle – Distinction Between Work-Charged and Daily Wager Service – Petitioner Ineligible – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prem Singh (2019) applies to work-charged employees under 1961 Rules; clarified in Uday Pratap Thakur (2023) that daily wager service cannot be counted for pension quantum or qualifying service under Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: Petitioner being daily wager, not entitled to pensionary benefits for pre-regularization service [Paras 17-18].

Pending Reference Before Larger Bench – Judicial Restraint Exercised – The issue of counting daily wage service under the 2011 Rules is sub judice before Division Bench in Kanhai Ram (2024)—Held: Court refrained from granting relief pending authoritative determination of issue—Petitioner at liberty to avail remedy post reference outcome [Para 18-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Pension Entitlement for Daily Wage Service – Court dismissed petition noting absence of requisite 20 years qualifying service post-regularization, and legal distinction between work-charged and daily wager categories—Petitioner’s remedy remains open subject to decision in pending reference [Para 19].

Civil Law - Title and Recovery of Possession – Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act - Dar Raiyati Interest – Right Not Heritable – Adverse Possession Plea Rejected – The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of right, title and possession over raiyati land, claiming defendants, recorded as sikmi dakhaldars, had no inheritable rights – Trial Court dismissed the suit relying on limitation and adverse possession – The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s finding, holding that Sikmi rights are not inheritable without proof of custom – Second appeal dismissed confirming the Appellate Court's findings that the defendants are mere trespassers – Provisions of the C.N.T. Act and Specific Relief Act do not bar such suits by recorded raiyats – Held: Entry in records shows plaintiffs as rightful raiyats and defendants' occupation is unauthorized [Paras 3-23].

Adverse Possession – No Hostile Animus Established – Continuous Possession Insufficient – The defendants claimed long possession for 70-75 years and heritable sikmi rights by custom – Court held possession alone does not constitute adverse possession – There was no hostile assertion against plaintiffs nor claim of ownership adverse to them – Revenue records remained unchanged reflecting plaintiffs' title – Held: No adverse possession established, defendants liable to be ejected [Paras 9, 17-21].

Suit Maintainability – Bar under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Section 46(1)(a) of C.N.T. Act – Clarified – The Court held that a recorded raiyat is entitled to sue for recovery of possession from unauthorized occupants despite remarks column entries showing sikmi rights – Suit is not barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act or Section 46 of C.N.T. Act as no lease exceeding five years was in question – Notice under Section 106 T.P. Act is not necessary in cases of unauthorized possession – Held: Plaintiffs' suit maintainable [Paras 7, 22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court upheld – Defendants are trespassers liable to be evicted from suit land – No interference warranted in concurrent findings on title and possession in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Conviction and Death Sentence Set Aside – The appellants were sentenced to death by trial court on the basis of circumstantial evidence including alleged last seen theory, recovery of bloodstained articles, and statement of one accused under Section 164 CrPC – Held: Prosecution failed to establish a complete, credible, and unbroken chain of circumstances – Absence of proof regarding last seen, strained relations between victim and accused, and unproven recoveries led to acquittal [Paras 1-64].

Confession – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Not Amounting to Confession – The purported confession of Sanjoy Biswas implicated only disposal of body and not murder – Held: Such partial disclosure, untested by cross-examination, cannot be treated as confession under law – Cannot form basis of conviction without corroborative evidence [Paras 58-59].

Last Seen Theory – Not Proved – Section 302 IPC – Alleged matrimonial discord between deceased and husband was insufficient to establish last seen theory – Prosecution failed to produce direct evidence or reliable witness placing accused near the crime scene at material time – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 53-56].

Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Section 27 Evidence Act – Unreliable and Procedurally Deficient – Alleged recovery of bloodstained articles not established in law due to omission in Section 313 CrPC examination and absence of corroboration – Evidence inadmissible to sustain conviction [Paras 57-59].

Death Penalty – ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine Not Attracted – Death sentence not sustainable in absence of compelling, direct or legally admissible evidence – Court reaffirms principle that capital punishment cannot be based on weak circumstantial evidence [Paras 60-61].

Decision – Conviction and Death Sentence Reversed – Accused Acquitted – Conviction and sentence of death set aside – Appellants Surajit Deb, Lipika Poddar, and Sanjoy Biswas acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case [Paras 60-64].

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Sections 506(i) and 353 IPC – Sentence Reduced – The petitioner, a shop owner, was convicted by the trial court for obstructing and intimidating a Food Inspector (PW4) while discharging official duties and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under both Sections 506(i) and 353 IPC along with fines – The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court – In the revision, the High Court held that the consistent and credible testimony of the Food Inspector, corroborated by PW1, established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt despite PW2 and PW3 turning hostile – The Court rejected the contention that acquittal under the PFA Act precluded conviction under IPC since the offences under PFA Act and IPC are distinct in nature – The Court refused to apply Section 210 Cr.P.C. as offences and occurrences in the two cases were different – Observations in PFA case about non-obstruction were held irrelevant – The Court declined to interfere with the conviction but considering the petitioner’s old age (73 years), ailments, and prolonged pendency of over 21 years, reduced the substantive sentence from six months to three months while maintaining the fine and default sentence – Ordered sentences to run concurrently [Paras 6-10].

Revenue Law - Natural Justice – Non-speaking Order and Violation of Audi Alteram Partem – Order Quashed – Petitioners challenged order cancelling mutation entry sanctioned in 1963 – The Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) allowed appeal reversing concurrent findings of subordinate authorities without assigning reasons and without considering petitioners’ submissions – Supreme Court reiterated that non-speaking orders violate natural justice and are unsustainable – Held: Such arbitrary exercise of quasi-judicial powers is liable to be quashed [Paras 1-14].

Reasoned Decision – Mandatory Requirement for Quasi-Judicial Authorities – The Court held that a quasi-judicial authority is duty-bound to record reasons showing proper application of mind, especially while overturning well-reasoned subordinate decisions – Absence of reasons amounts to miscarriage of justice and violates transparency, fairness, and accountability in adjudication [Paras 12-14, 15-17].

Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing – Short Notice Violates Fair Procedure – The Court found that petitioners, residing at Kopargaon, received notice on 11/08/2014 for hearing scheduled on 12/08/2014 at Mumbai – Such short notice was held unreasonable and violative of natural justice, particularly in a matter involving challenge to mutation entry after 40 years [Paras 14-15].

Remand of Proceedings – Fair Adjudication Directed – In view of multiple violations of natural justice, the Court refrained from examining merits and remanded the matter back to the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) for fresh consideration by granting proper opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order within three months [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – The impugned order dated 27/08/2014 set aside – Matter remanded for fresh decision with direction for expeditious disposal within three months while ensuring compliance with natural justice [Paras 20-22].

Civil Law – Property Purchased After Attachment – Sale Held Void – The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which dismissed his claim to exclude a property purchased after attachment from court auction – The appellant purchased Item No.2 of the schedule property under a registered sale deed after attachment was effected in the original suit proceedings – Both courts below held the sale void to the extent of 1/3rd share belonging to the judgment debtor’s husband – Held: Attachment prior to sale prevails, and subsequent sale is void – Second appeal dismissed confirming lower courts' concurrent findings [Paras 1-4, 16-22].

Attachment Before Judgment – Sale During Attachment – Legal Effect – Attachment was ordered before judgment and made absolute prior to sale of the property – Appellant being closely related to the judgment debtor, purchased the property despite knowing of the subsisting attachment – Held: Sale executed after attachment is void against decree-holder; the court emphasized that such transactions intended to defeat creditors' rights cannot be protected [Paras 16-18].

Substantial Questions of Law – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court's Jurisdiction – The High Court reiterated that in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, interference is limited to substantial questions of law and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence or interfering with concurrent factual findings – Held: Findings of both courts were based on proper evaluation of evidence and applicable law, thus warranting no interference [Paras 14-15, 21].

Family Property – Pious Obligation of Children – Debt for Family Necessity – The appellant argued that children of the judgment debtor had rights over the attached property – The Court held that debt was contracted by the mother for family necessity, thus binding upon the children under the doctrine of pious obligation, and the sale could not negate the execution proceedings – Sale deed to the extent of judgment debtor’s husband’s share deemed void [Paras 19-20].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Costs – The Court upheld the decisions of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal, observing no perversity or legal error in concurrent findings – No order as to costs [Para 22].

Second Regular Bail – Sections 307, 324, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC - Extended Custody and Near Completion of Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner, accused of attempted murder in a familial dispute, sought bail after over three years in custody – The Court found the prosecution evidence nearly concluded, with only one witness left, reducing risk of tampering – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention unjustified when evidentiary phase nearly complete; bail granted with conditions [Paras 3, 6-8].

Fair Trial Rights – Right to Defence – Bail Facilitates Defence Preparation – The Court emphasized the accused’s right to fair trial includes proper preparation of defence, which is hampered by extended custody – Held: Bail necessary to ensure robust defence in adversarial criminal proceedings [Para 6].

Second Bail Petition Maintainable – Change of Circumstances – The earlier bail plea was withdrawn; present plea justified by extended incarceration and completion of prosecution evidence – Held: Second bail petition maintainable on changed circumstances; Court followed principles laid in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana [Para 7].

No Criminal Antecedents – Age Consideration – Accused aged 69 years with no past criminal record – Held: Advanced age and absence of prior offences weigh in favour of bail [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions Imposed – Safeguards Against Misuse – Bail subject to strict conditions: no tampering of evidence, no absence from trial, no re-offending, surrender of passport, and mandatory mobile number registration with investigating agency [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the petition, granted regular bail with standard and additional safeguards; State/complainant granted liberty to seek cancellation upon any violation [Paras 8-10].

Bail Appeal – Group Assault – Sections 118, 117 of BNS and SC/ST Act – Bail Granted – The appellant challenged rejection of bail under multiple sections of BNS, 2023 and SC/ST Act alleging injuries inflicted during an altercation – The High Court observed no specific role was initially attributed to the appellant and the parties had since entered into a compromise – The appellant had undergone over five months of incarceration, the investigation was complete, and the trial was yet to commence – Held: Considering the compromise, prolonged custody, and absence of adjudication on merits at the pre-trial stage, the appellant was granted regular bail, subject to conditions [Paras 3-8].

SC/ST Act – Accused Himself Belonging to Scheduled Caste – Prima Facie Non-Applicability – The appellant contended being from a Scheduled Caste himself, hence, provisions of SC/ST Act were not applicable – The Court noted this contention without deciding on merits, considering it was a bail stage and such issues would be decided during trial [Paras 3, 7].

Compromise Between Parties – Impact on Bail – Role in Assault Disputed – The complainant affirmed compromise and settlement of disputes arising from misunderstanding – The Court held that though the allegations were serious, the settlement weighed in favour of granting bail – Held: Settlement between parties is a valid consideration in bail proceedings, especially where custodial trial would be prolonged [Paras 4-8].

Custodial Detention – Right to Liberty – Prolonged Detention Without Trial – The Court emphasised the principle of liberty where the appellant had been in custody since 28.01.2025 with no substantial trial progress – Held: Further pre-trial incarceration not justified, bail granted [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Bail Granted – The appeal was allowed and appellant ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial court – Court clarified that non-furnishing of bail bonds within one week would exclude further custody counting in the present case [Paras 8-9].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Right of Residence – Interplay with Domestic Violence Act – Tribunal’s order upheld – Petitioners (daughter-in-law and relatives) challenged Maintenance Tribunal’s order under Senior Citizens Act permitting 2nd respondent (mother-in-law) to reside on first floor of same building occupied by petitioners on ground floor – Petitioners relied on Apex Court decision in Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner to contend right to shared household under PWDV Act cannot be defeated – Held: Vanitha does not bar invocation of Senior Citizens Act where no prejudice is caused to protection order under PWDV Act – Separate entrances and floors ensured no interference with petitioners’ rights – Tribunal’s order sustained [Paras 8].

Maintainability – Daughter-in-law within definition of “children” – Purposive interpretation applied – Petitioners contended proceedings under Senior Citizens Act not maintainable against daughter-in-law – Court held that purposive interpretation of “children” in Section 2(a) includes daughter-in-law when in possession of property and relief sought is for senior citizen’s residence – Refusal would defeat object of Act to provide speedy remedy – Telangana High Court’s decision in Deepika H. followed [Paras 9-12].

Apprehension of Harassment – Not a ground to deny senior citizen residence in own property – Petitioners argued past incidents of harassment justify denial of residence – Court noted 2nd respondent’s undertaking to reside only on first floor with separate access – Petitioners free to seek remedies under Section 31 PWDV Act or alternate accommodation under Section 19(f) if protection order violated – Mere apprehension insufficient [Paras 13].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Ext.P10 order of Maintenance Tribunal permitting 2nd respondent’s residence on first floor upheld [Final Para]